D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter: The Zouave

[Garthanos]

I find it odd that said person would use that as an excuse when it doesn’t apply to their own games. But of course Tony knew what I meant.

The game said feats were optional... their being optional means they cannot really be relied on in measuring/analyzing a class. Since the class can very much be experienced without them. Its a validity argument regardless of whether someone can change that readily or not.

 

[Don Durito]

In 3E, I used to begin Fighters off with a level of Rogue to get some decent skills.

5E is different, I don't take the level of Rogue until 2nd level. (Because Expertise is when skills actually become worth having).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find it odd that said person would use that as an excuse when it doesn’t apply to their own games.

Pointing out the fact that feats are optional merely undercuts the excuse "but, fighter's can spend their first bonus feat at 6th level to... " ...fix everything wrong with the class, really.

No, they can put their first bonus ASI at 6th level to a +2 in some less-critical stat without 'falling behind' (or pulling ahead) of the next guy in terms of STR or DEX (depending on which way the fighter went), or, if the DM has opted-into Feats, grab their 2nd- (or 3rd if variant human) priority feat two levels earlier than the next guy.

Now, if feats were standard (yeah, some DMs might opt out of them, but standard is standard), and fighter's got their first bonus feat at first level (like they did in 3e), y'might have a stronger point.
Especially if they could retrain it frequently, oddly enough.

Some people won't be happy until fighters have something unique that only they have that no other class has an option to obtain

Like Action Surge?

They will always be compared to the standard of classes that are designed to be weaker at combat while better outside of combat

What 5e class is actually like that? I mean, noticeably ineffectual in the combat pillar? I can see how you could willfully design a character and intentionally learn only non-combat spells (I don't think you'd run out of choices too soon), to be that way, but no class that /is/ particularly weak at combat, without going a little out of your way to force it to be.

Fighters don't need to be the Mary Sues of classes.

See, that wouldn't be unique, either, because we already have the Bard. (j/k ...though if anyone's going name their character Mary Sue rather than Bob...)

fighters can get really close by using their two bonus feats.

Fun fact: Feats are still optional.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The game said feats were optional... their being optional means they cannot really be relied on in measuring/analyzing a class. Since the class can very much be experienced without them. Its a validity argument regardless of whether someone can change that readily or not.

And players can't change it readily. Feats simply aren't a player-side resource, in that sense. ASIs are.

 

[Garthanos]

What 5e class is actually like that? I mean, noticeably ineffectual in the combat pillar?

The thief ... no wait that was 1e and he was ineffectual at what he was supposed to be good at too so it doesn't count.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thief ... no wait that was 1e and he was ineffectual at what he was supposed to be good at too so it doesn't count.

From 3e on, no class has really just been an obligate flat-out useless wuss in combat.

The flip side of that was that there was no reason for the Fighter to continue to be such a fish out of water when not in combat. But that's taking a very long time to slowly be realized. 3e gave the fighter punitively few skill points, and the worst skill list, period - worse that Warrior and Commoner! - 4e and 5e were less crippling than that and each slightly expanded that skill list, but still gave it the fewest (tied for fewest) skills of any class. They each also made the gap between skilled & unskilled less profound, so, even as the fighter caught up in skills, skills became less meaningful.

 

[Blue]

I was using you as an exemple of people saying that the fighter is (though in your case it's 'sometime') "the blacksmith apprentice who picks up a sword"or other similar permutation of 'commoner with a pointy stick'.

Which I personally disagree with (and so does the class description mind you), but that is beside the point I was making: that this image is still a very commonly held perception in the player base and colour's people perception of what a Fighter 'should' be able to do or not.

Okay, the blacksmith with a sword", or rather "the commoner who takes up a weapon and makes good" is a common archetype found through stories, legends and myths. D&D needs to be able to handle it. I think the fighter can describe those people just as much as the soldier or what have you, and the system provides a background to help define this.

You specifically call out that I said sometimes, so your position seems that the fighter can never be this. Please let me know why if I want to play a commoner who picks up a weapon and does well that you disagree the fighter class can be a right choice to play that character.

Again, I in no way said that is the only position for the fighter. The fighter can be a vet - take the Soldier background. They can be well traveled - take the Outlander or other well travelled background, they can be a lot of things. But they can also be a folk hero, a criminal, or a sage. So any argument that a fighter can be other things does not support your point, only that they can not be that common archetype.

 

[Don Durito]

Here's a simple thing for Fighters. It's not super interesting but it at least helps fill a gap.

At level 1, pick an additional background. Choose from a list that includes a whole lot of Fighter appropriate backgrounds. (Eg. Soldier, Gladiator etc). Pick a single skill from that background. If you already have proficiency in that skill instead gain Expertise.

Additional: You gain contacts from that background. Once per game session, if the DM deems it situationally appropriate you may call on a contact for help and succor. You must explain your connection to this person.

 

[Undrave]

Okay, the blacksmith with a sword", or rather "the commoner who takes up a weapon and makes good" is a common archetype found through stories, legends and myths. D&D needs to be able to handle it. I think the fighter can describe those people just as much as the soldier or what have you, and the system provides a background to help define this.

You specifically call out that I said sometimes, so your position seems that the fighter can never be this. Please let me know why if I want to play a commoner who picks up a weapon and does well that you disagree the fighter class can be a right choice to play that character.

Again, I in no way said that is the only position for the fighter. The fighter can be a vet - take the Soldier background. They can be well traveled - take the Outlander or other well travelled background, they can be a lot of things. But they can also be a folk hero, a criminal, or a sage. So any argument that a fighter can be other things does not support your point, only that they can not be that common archetype.

The commoner who picks up a sword can be your origin, your Folk Hero background,

But you can't be a level 1 Fighter who JUST picked the sword up. Before level 1 you should have experience.

The PHB says about Fighter that

Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

I would argue DnD doesn't actually cover the commoner who just picked up the sword. At all. Every level 1 PCs already has experience under their belt. The Wizard has years of learning Arcana, for exemple and the Rogue has tons of skills and so forth. The Wizard isn't 'the Village Bookworm who decided to try slinging a Firebolt one day'. A Level 1 Monk isn't 'tavern idiot decides to throw a punch'.

Level 1 is level 1 for everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, a beginning fighter isn’t really a veteran with all of those skills. More of a low ranking person with little or no combat experience (if they did, they wouldn’t start with 0 experience)

The PHB says about Fighter that

Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

HA! 1st level Fighter! Still a "Veteran!"

1E FOREVER!!!